Anyone who has ever had the job of negotiating has been made aware of the problem of starting with the position of what it is you want. This position is countered by what the other party wants. Disscusions started at the two poles result in some type of middle ground or in some cases the "Status Quo".
Regarding the intransiet position of Fishery Managers to move on what I view as adequate Wild Stock protection I have to wonder what extreme proposal would one have to start with in order to achive his real objective of adequate escapement.
The Anti C&R boys are quick to suggest a Februaury closeing date with no C&R season maybe we need to recomend a complete closure as a starting point realizing of course such an event is as unlikely as the scenario where there is no C&R season. Something that I read in the parks news release that I find saddening is that despite numerous post on several websites and calls for testimony in local and regional newspapers only 70 individuals responded to the request for testimony.
I will keep on responding and stay the course but when the Park Service disses its own proposal because of WDFW I wonder if it will ever come to pass.

sinktip

05-02-2003, 02:09 PM

Moonlight,

I fear you are right on the need to negotiate from the extreme. The WDFW commission certainly showed last year their willingness to find a center ground even when faced with overwhelming evidence and testimony.

There has been much talk on consensus building and protecting user interests while the interests of the wild stocks continue to be ignored. I fear we are coming to the point that the official motto will be "Kill all you want, we'll just make more".

sinktip

JDJones

05-02-2003, 02:59 PM

Negotiations must start at the extream. Otherwise we keep losing a little more each time as the middle ground keeps being redefined. And the more "we" give, the more "they" ask for. As a good example, look at the gun control issue.

rich_simms

05-02-2003, 05:32 PM

It is pretty apalling that only 70 Individuals & organizations responded, but if subject viewing numbers are any indication of getting involved, anglers are more concerned about fly swaps and hooks than going to bat for the resource they so say they love.:(

flytyer

05-03-2003, 12:46 AM

Moonlight,

I'm very disappointed to hear that only 70 people took the time to respond to the request for testimony. However, since 70 people care enough about the fishery to respond, one would hope that the Park Service would take these responses as indicative of how the fishing public feels and enact the regulations accordingly.

Perhaps you are right about the need to start negotiating from the standpoint of closing all fisheries on January 1. Then maybe more anglers would get involved and quite possibly WDFW would listen and enact C&R year round on wild fish in all river systems.

Moonlight

05-03-2003, 10:44 AM

Flytyer, I am going to ask officialy for a viewing of the correspondence that the park received on the proposals. I actually would like to see just what the ratio is pro con and I will pass that on when and if I can assemble that info. The Park sent me the entire regulation package, as a respondent I assume everyone will receive the same, however they do not include the specifics that I am going to ask for.
On a modestly positive note they did actually increase the number of areas that are managed under C&R special rules in the proposal package it just stopped way too short of what the Staff Propsals were calling for. A little bird warned me that this might happen because of the Parks attorneys and there association with WDFW counterparts. I ignored the rumor and proceeded with the hope and conviction that this venue would be our best hope to finally test Fore Gone Op but alas screwed again.
See you in Jail.

flytyer

05-04-2003, 01:55 AM

Moonlight,

I have not received anything from the Park Serviece to date despite having responded to their request for input. Those of us who do not live on the Peninsula may not get the regulations package, although I do desire for all of us who responded to receive same from the Park Service.

The argument about foregone opportunity is so maddening because Bolt very clearly on said that the treaty tribes (and not all treaty tribes, only those who had federal recognition intake at the time of the decision) were entitiled to 1/2 of the harestable number of salmon and steelhead. This means on its face that the treaty tribes cannot increase their harvest number simply because sportsfishers C&R. The language is very clear on the 1/2 of harvestable fish number, not more if another user group does not harvest the other half.

It seems that the WDFW attornerys are worried that if it enacts C&R for wild fish on all rivers, one or more of the treaty tribes will file suit or threaten to file suit to harvest more fish because of foregone opportunity, and that this would result a new round of court battles for years. I have a very strong sense that none of the treaty tribes wants to have Bolt reopened, which such a suit would do. As a means to bolster my suspician of the tribes not wanting Bolt reopened, look at how all the treaty tribes filed friend of the court briefs in opposition to the Samish Tribe's (which has lost its federal recognition at the time of the Bolt decision) attempt to be declared a treaty tribe with fishing rights under Bolt.